Finding a Safe Space: How Ostracism
Influences Environmental Design Preferences
Benjamin R.
1Franklin
1
Meagher
& Marshall College,
& Kerry L.
2University
2
Marsh
of Connecticut
Introduction

Although several studies demonstrate increased social motivation following rejection (e.g., Maner,
DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007), this behavior appears to be moderated by the extent to which
individuals believe the prospect for future positive interaction is high.
• Independent samples t-test was employed to assess whether
participants in the ostracized condition would report lower
preference for sociopetal space
• A mixed effects model was employed, with liking of layout regressed on ostracism condition, the
social rating of the room, and fear of negative evaluation
Ren, Wesselmann, and Williams (2016) have argued that an alternative response to ostracism is to
move away from the situation.


Experiment 2
 Statistically significant two-way interaction (Condition x Social Rating):
b = 0.05, t(965) = 2.47, p = 0.014, 95% CI [0.01, 0.10]
 t(91) = 2.79, p = 0.006, d = 0.59
Ostracized individuals may choose to withdraw from others as a means of protecting
themselves from additional pain.
6
For those motivated to find solitude, there is perhaps no more effective method than to seek out a
physical environment that affords privacy
 When adding the three-way interaction to the model (Condition x Social Rating X Fear of
Negative Evaluation): b = 0.06, t(951) = 3.49, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.03, 0.10]
Inclusion Condition
Ostracism Condition
5
Sociopetal Preference

Experiment 1
The Hypothesis:
Participants' impressions of spatial designs should be dependent on how well the setting’s social affordances
fit with the social motivations of the perceiver. Specifically, ostracized individuals were expected to show a
lower liking of sociopetal settings (i.e., spaces designed to facilitate interaction), compared to those included.
Method
4
Liking of Layout
Recent research indicates that individuals show diverse behavioral responses to social ostracism.
Results
3
2
Experiment 1
• Mturk participants (n = 93) engaged in an ostensible
online interaction with strangers (Wolf et al., 2015) that
involved writing a brief self-introduction (see Figure 1).
1
 Included condition: received 5 likes
 Ostracism condition: received 1 like
4
4
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
3
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
-1 SD Social
Rating
Mean
+1 SD Social
Rating
-1 SD Fear of Negative Evaluation
Ostracized
Excluded
Included
-1 SD Social
Rating
Mean
+1 SD Social
Rating
Mean Fear of Negative Evaluation
-1 SD Social
Rating
Mean
+1 SD Social
Rating
+1 SD Fear of Negative Evaluation
• Commonness ratings did not interact with the ostracism manipulation.
Conclusions
•
These experiments demonstrate how social motives, manipulated by brief experiences of ostracism, influence evaluations of spatial arrangements.
 In both studies, participants showed an increased liking of sociofugal space following ostracism, a finding that significantly extends previous work demonstrating
self-protective motives to “move away” (Ren et al., 2016).
 This effect was particularly pronounced among individuals high in fear of negative evaluation, indicating that certain dispositional traits can also guide responses
to spatial layout.
Figure 1. Layout of Ostracism Online program
Figure 2. Sample items from Preference
for Sociopetal Space Scale
• Participants then completed the 6-item bipolar Preference
for Sociopetal Space Scale to measure preference for
socially arranged layouts (see Figure 2).
 This scale had adequate internal reliability, α = 0.83
Experiment 2
• Mturk participants (n = 91) played a virtual game of Cyberball (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000) with three
ostensible partners. Ostracized participants were ignored for the game after two initial throws.
• After the game, they evaluated 12 spatial layouts on three, 5-point items: (a) How much do you like this
layout? (b) How social is this layout? (c) How common is this layout?
 Participants also completed the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (a = .96; Leary, 1983)
•
Physical environment selection may offer a particularly important means of coping with negative social experiences.
 Understanding what environmental factors can be altered to match the emotional needs of occupants therefore represents a potentially valuable method for
developing best practices for environmental design and intervention.
 Whether these manipulations are capable of actually facilitating emotional recovery is a question for future work.
References
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375. doi:10.1177/0146167283093007.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the ‘porcupine problem.’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 42–55. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42.
Ren, D.,Wesselmann, E., &Williams, K. D. (2016). Evidence for another response to ostracism: Solitude seeking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 204–212. doi: 10.1177/1948550615616169
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748.
Wolf, W., Levordashka, A., Ruff, J. R., Kraaijeveld, S., Lueckmann, J. -M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). Ostracism online: A social media ostracism paradigm. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 361–373.
doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0475-x.